October 8, 1891] 



NATURE 



557 



in Antwerp, it would be 576 95 troy grains. But none of these 

 are carat grains. De Boot, on the other hand, in estimating 

 the 140 mangelins as 187^ carats, took the mangelin not at the 

 5 carat grains of Garcias, but at 5 "3568 such grains, taking 

 probably i^^ carat as the measure of the mangelin instead of i^ 

 carat, the former being one among the several values which this 

 variable unit had in different places. 



The 187I carats of De lioot would, on the value of the 

 Amsterdam carat, ']\ of which equal an engle, which was the 

 sixteenth part of the Dutch troy mark, give a weight for the 

 diamond in question of 593*437 troy grains : the weight of the 

 Koh-i Nur having been 589*5 troy grains. It is very difficult to 

 ascertain with accuracy the values of the different units— marks, 

 ounces, carats — in the different countries and cities jn the 

 seventeenth century ; but it is probable that even the mere 4 

 grains, or liltle more than a carat, difference between De Boot's 

 estimate of the 140 mangelins and the traditional weight of the 

 Koh-i-Nur would disappear if we possessed these data in a more 

 complete form. There can be little doubt that Le Cluze was 

 in error in taking the apothecary weight instead of carat weight 

 in translating the grains of Garcias. 



It may be asked, Why devote so much consideration to this 

 casual statement of De Boot's ? The answer is twofold. The 

 astronomer has patiently searched in the records of early 

 observations for any that might indicate the position at a former 

 epoch of a new-found planet ? and so, where the silence about 

 an object of historical interest has been scarcely broken through 

 two or three centuries, one tests any observation of the casual 

 wayfarer in the domain of literature that may perhaps shed a 

 ray of light on it. The other reason is that, if not disposed to 

 resent, one is at least desirous to refute, attack on those who 

 can no longer give their own answer to assailants of a new 

 generation, who perhaps may not bring to an investigation the 

 learning or the patient temper of those who have gone from us, 

 and carried great stores of scholarly learning into the silence. 

 Whether I am right or wrong in the explanation I have 

 offered of De Boot's conversion of Garcias's 140 mangelins into 

 187^ carats, I trust that at any rate I have shown cause for the 

 statement by Mr. King that " it seems as if he (De Boot) had 

 heard of the Koh-i-Nur ; it being scarcely probable that two 

 stones should be coexistent of that extraordinary weight." 



In dealing with another of those coincidences in weight to 

 which allusion was made, and one example of which has just 

 been discussed, we get on the delicate ground of the degree of 

 confidence to be placed in Tavernier's facts and figures, and the 

 not less delicate ground of a theory about the Koh-i-Nur, started 

 by Dr. Ball, before which the other strange vicissitudes and 

 hairbreadth escapes of that old talisman pale into insignificance. 



We have made sufficient acquaintance with the historic Indian 

 diamond to leave it for a while, in order to introduce that other 

 greater stone which we have designated as the " Great Mogul." 



Bernier, from personal contact with whom Tavernier no doubt 

 derived much of what had an historical character in his volumes, 

 describes the gift by Emir Jumla, a Persian adventurer of great 

 ability in the service of the King of Golconda, of a large diamond 

 to the Emperor Shah Jahan, "ce grand diamant que Ton estime 

 sans pareil." It was an appeal to his cupidity, and to a real 

 connoisseur's passion for precious stones, at a time when the 

 Emir was effecting a change in his allegiance from Golconda 

 to Delhi— in fact, appealing to a new master to induce him to 

 assail the old one. 



In 1665, Tavernier, who was no less a courtier than a dealer, 

 was invited by Aurungzebe to present himself at his Court to 

 inspect his jewels. 



The Emperor, seated on the peacock throne, could see the 

 ceremony that was conducted in a small apartment at the end of 

 the ball. Tavernier describes the patient circumspection with 

 which he was shown the various stones and jewels by a Persian 

 custodian. First and foremost among them was the great 

 diamond, " qui est une rose (a rose-cut stone) ronde (rounded 

 but not necessarily circular in form) fort haute d'un cote." 

 There was a small crack at the edge below, and a little flaw 

 within. It was of fine water, and weighed 319^ ratis, which 

 Tavernier states to be equivalent to "280 de nos carats," the rati 

 being \ of a carat, which, however, would give 279*58 carats. 

 Such was the only great diamond that he saw, and as he first 

 described it. 



He proceeds to give his version of its history. It was the 

 stone given by the Emir Jumla to Shah Jahan ; but he adds that, 



NO. I 145, VOL. 44] 



whereas it had then a weight of 900 ratis or 787J carats, it was 

 worked down by a Venetian diamond-cutter, Hortensio Borgis, 

 till it had only the 280 carats weight above noted. The woxA^gris^e 

 is that used ; Dr. Ball interprets it as entirely ,^'r(7««a' down. But, 

 though this is the most rational meaning of this technical word, it 

 would, as Mr. King has remarked, have taken more time than the 

 few months which intervened between the gift and the eclipse of 

 Shah Jahan for the mere grinding down to have been accom- 

 plished by the proces-es in use in the seventeenth century, and 

 especially in India. Undoubtedly, therefore, Hortensio must 

 have availed himself of the cleavage property of the diamond to 

 aid him in his grinding process. Tavernier goes on to say, 

 " Apres avoir bien contemple cette grande pierre, et ravoir 

 remise entre les mains d'Akel-Kan, il me fit voir un autre 

 diamant," &c., &c. ; and he then describes a number of stones 

 and pearls, of which he gives the weights, some more or less ap- 

 proximately, some definitely, in ratis or in melscals (or mishkals). 

 The melscal he also states as giving 6 to the ounce, which I 

 think is probably a mistake for 6^^ to the ounce. Finally, he 

 says that he had held all the jewels in his hand, and considered 

 them with sufficient attention and leisure to be able to assure the 

 reader that his description of them is exact and trustworthy, as 

 was that of the thrones which he previously had ample time to 

 inspect. It will be noted he does not say he weighed any of 

 the stones ; nor does his doing so seem compatible with his 

 description of the scene. 



But in another chapter near the end of the same book he gives 

 a brief enumeration of the finest precious stones he had, in his 

 long travels, known. The diamond described in the earlier chapter 

 is alluded to now with slight but immaterial variations or correc- 

 tions as to weight ; but Tavernier here states that he was allowed 

 to weigh the stone, and he further adds that it had the form of an 

 egg cut through the middle. Dr. Ball truly notes that this pro- 

 cess may be performed in one of two ways — longitudinally, or 

 transversely ; and that the Koh-i-Nur in 1850 represented the 

 longitudinally bisected demi-egg, but, he naively adds, "This 

 difference of form, as I shall explain, was the result of the 

 mutilation to which it was subject." 



Tavernier's statement that the diamond was " fort haute d'un 

 cote " seems, indeed, hardly to accord with any other than a 

 longitudinal section of the egg. 



But then, as if to make his description inexplicable, 

 Tavernier appends to this later chapter — written or edited 

 probably by another hand four or five years after the event of 

 his handling the stone — a rude sketch of the great diamond 

 that he saw. It may be conceived as an extremely inaccurate 

 sketch from memory of a semi-egg-shaped stone seen "end on," 

 or of a cross-cut half-egg seen from any point of view ; but, 

 except for the trace of a small undercut face in his projection, it 

 has not any resemblance to the Koh-i-Nur. In width, his sketch 

 is very slightly larger than the length of the Windsor diamond, 

 but in no other dimension does it at all compare with that stone 

 as it was in 1850. 



Then there is the question of weight. Babar's diamond, we 

 have seen, weighed about 8 mishkals, or, in Indian weights, 

 about 320 ratis (gold ratis). This would correspond to 240 

 pearl ratis, or may be represented as 224 of the Deccan ratis of 

 Ferishta. 



The diamond Tavernier saw weighed, he said (was he merely 

 told so, or did he really weigh it ?), 319^ ratis, only half a rati 

 different from Babar's diamond. But Tavernier's ratis were not 

 those which Babar reckoned by, and his carats (nos carats) must 

 (pace Dr. Ball) have been French carats. Dr. Ball supposes he 

 has contributed to the published data of this tangle of contra- 

 dictions one new fact in a final determination of Tavernier's 

 carat, and, by implication, of his rati also. Tavernier gives the 

 weight in carats of the yellow diamond of the Grand Duke of 

 Tuscany, now in the Schatzkammer at Vienna. The weight of 

 this stone being accurately known, and being also given by 

 Tavernier as 139^ carats, it is not difficult to determine the 

 value of this particular carat to be 3 037 troy grains. This is 

 in fact identical with the Florentine or Tuscan carat, as Dr. Ball 

 points out. 



That gentleman assumes from this that Tavernier always 

 employed this carat in his calculations. Such, however, is quite 

 incompatible with his expression on other occasions, when he 

 speaks of ^' nos carats." It is clear that Tavernier took the 

 weight of this P'lorentine diamond from some trustworthy Tuscan 

 source, giving it in Florentine carats. In fact, it is an illustra- 



